It's obvious why they chose the 2700K.
Because everyone knows there is a minimal perceived performance gain from the 2700K to the 2500K. So by comparing to the higher end Intel CPU, AMD was able to splash more egg onto Intel's face.
But it's not just that. Remember that AMD was comparing two systems of equal value (Unlike official reviews that always compare systems using equal specs). What this means is since they used a more expensive cpu, they had to use a cheaper components. The only thing we know about the two systems is which CPU/Motherboard/GPU they had. Everything else could have been different. Also, everyone is assuming they were testing with games, but there's no mention of that. I'm sure they tested using plenty of day-to-day apps, Windows loading, web browsing, Word docs etc. I would bet the AMD system had enough spare value to use and SSD, while the Intel might have been running a standard disk drive. That obviously would make a big difference in loading times, which is what most average people use as their sole performance indicator.
I'm not saying AMD did anything wrong, of course. It is an extremely interesting test, and a completely valid point. It underlines what AMD fans have been saying for years (since 2006): Yes, Intel is faster. But for the same amount money, I can do way better with AMD.

Except you can't. As has been proven in this thread. Multiple times. Already. You can get Intel processors that are as cheap as or cheaper than their AMD counterparts that do the same or better. Where AMD has Intel beat is motherboard prices.

Without publishing details of the test it's difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions. It's difficult to even tell if AMD conducted the test fairly. I'm not doubting their results- it true, there are a lot of situations where it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference. I cant probably can't eyeball the difference between 120fps and 100fps. Even if the test is completely on-the-level, I'm not sure it proves Bulldozer is a 'smart buy'.

Except you can't. As has been proven in this thread. Multiple times. Already. You can get Intel processors that are as cheap as or cheaper than their AMD counterparts that do the same or better. Where AMD has Intel beat is motherboard prices.

The bottom line is in a blind test AMD's system was much favored over Intel's. It is what it is. No one is going to convert the CPU zealouts to change brands of CPUs. Buy what makes you happen - just don't bury your head in the sand and think that CPU benchmarks or technical specifications are the end all or be all of PC operation, as they can be misleading.

Meh... Fast hardware vs fast hardware... I wonder which will be fast...

The only thing I wonder about is if they used a game that hitched from using Hyperthreading on the 2700k that could have added bias to the experience.
Because the test was done as to which experience was better any hiccup could cause negative feedback.

A lot of the time I get a better "feeling" from higher clocked systems. I'm probably going to say that it comes from a smaller reaction time. This is probably what got AMD those votes. That's the only plausible answer I can come up with, anyways.

Sure, we all know Intel can pick a nice cheaper alternative to the 8150 and pull the same thing and get basically the same results. But again, that would be kind of bias as well. The fact is, it works both ways, and this is marketing, not synthetic benchmarks and extreme workloads. All AMD is saying is that they do have a CPU that can game and give you all the experience you need, so give us a shot. And for the average user who actually thinks the guys at BestBuy know their stuff will take it into consideration and consider AMD as the CPU in their next computer.

So who cares... It's really a non-story.... But I can see why they would want to defend themselves in such a way like this, as reviewers aren't being so forgiving and the charts speak for themselves... Though ask yourself, does 90% of consumers really into peak encoding times while gaming and streaming video or something Heck, a lot of them are running their OS on green HDD's or Blue at best... and cheapo ram.... with IGP... I think encoding is the least of their worries.

Ah, but the 1100t does about the same, and is cheaper then all then the ones mentioned in your comment other than the 2120, which, dual core? Come on... XD
NOTE: I put maybe 15 seconds of research into this, both the I5 2500k and the 1100t stock is 3.3ghz, thats all I compared.

The only trouble with that is the Phenom II's are getting discontinued or maybe they already have? I mean one could also argue in favor of a Q6600's bang for its buck, but it is getting hard to find any new ones these days...even used ones are getting fewer. The Thubans will soon be in that boat too. So we are going to have to start focusing solely on the new FX line of CPUs from AMD soon.

I mean, I run a Q6600 in my primary media machine and since it is the only rig I have that has a blue ray drive on it, it also does most of my h.264 encoding work and the Q6600 handles it like a champ...with one core running F@H 24/7 (though I imagine it will back down to let the encoding have the core if it wants it). The few games I've played on it with the attached 5850 fair no worse then the days when the 5850 was coupled with my I7 at 4GHz...at least to the eye. I am sure if I turned on a fps meter I see a few frames less, but nothing too serious. Of course...it won't hold a candle to a 2500k, but outside of the benchmarks...it might be hard to tell the difference

Software just is not pushing hardware like it used to. We used to have massive leaps between CPU generations and now days we have to run a benchmark or look very closely to see the difference in performance. A few years ago I would not have been caught dead with a last generation CPU, but now days I fail to find a reason to upgrade...and I guess now I am actually two generations behind.Edited by Vagrant Storm - 1/27/12 at 12:18pm

The bottom line is in a blind test AMD's system was much favored over Intel's. It is what it is. No one is going to convert the CPU zealouts to change brands of CPUs. Buy what makes you happen - just don't bury your head in the sand and think that CPU benchmarks or technical specifications are the end all or be all of PC operation, as they can be misleading.

I let my brother use my i5-560M laptop last year (only had a 7200rpm hard drive, no SSD; 4GB of RAM) and he said it felt way faster than his Athlon II X3 445 (1TB 7200rpm, 4GB DDR3). Both at stock. It is what it is but in reality most people consider single or dual-threaded performance when considering what feels fast. Anyways benchmarks don't lie, aggregating all the gaming benchmarks of BD vs. SB shows SB clearly wins even with a 2500k (remember, 2500k to 2600 or 2700k shows negligible gaming performance difference).

Anyways if someone needs really good multi-threaded performance, Bulldozer is a good choice. It's kind of like i3 vs. Phenom II X4 - sure, i3 is faster for gaming sometimes but it's terrible when you compare multi-threaded between the 2.Edited by jrbroad77 - 1/27/12 at 12:18pm